Physopelta (Neophysopelta) slanbuschii ( Fabricius, 1787 )

Stehlík, Jaroslav L., 2013, Review and reclassification of the Old World genus Physopelta (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Largidae), Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 53 (2), pp. 505-584 : 543-545

Physopelta (Neophysopelta) slanbuschii ( Fabricius, 1787)

Cimex Slanbuschii Fabricius, 1787: 299–300 (description, distribution).

SYNTYPES: 5 spec., China (ZMUC; see ZIMSEN 1964).

Cimex Slanbuschii: GMELIN (1790) : 2172 (diagnosis); ZIMSEN (1964): 327 (types).

Lygaeus schlanbuschii (incorrect subsequent spelling): FABRICIUS (1794): 155 – 156 (new combination, redescription, distribution);

Lygaeus Schlanbuschii (incorrect subsequent spelling): FABRICIUS (1803): 222 (diagnosis, distribution).

Pyrrhocoris Schlangenbuschii (incorrect subsequent spelling): BURMEISTER (1835): 286 (new combination,diagnosis, distribution).

Dysdercus schlanbuschii: UHLER (1861) : 229 (new combination, distribution).

Physopelta Schlangbuschi (incorrect subsequent spelling): STÅL (1861): 195 (list of species);

Physopelta Schlanbuschii (incorrect subsequent spelling): STÅL (1863): 391 (catalogue, distribution); STÅL (1868): 80 (catalogue, distribution); STÅL (1870): 100 (catalogue, distribution); WALKER (1873): 18, 20–21 (key, variability, catalogue, distribution); DISTANT (1879a): 127 (distribution); LETHIERRY & SEVERIN (1894): 242 (catalogue, distribution); DISTANT (1903a): 99 (redescription, distribution); MATSUMURA (1905): 27 (distribution); MAXWELLLEFROY (1909): 325 (distribution).

Physopelta schlanbuschi (incorrect subsequent spelling): MANNA et al. (1985): 621–630 (chromosomes, figures, distribution); GHOSH et al. (1989): 207 (catalogue, distribution); CHAKRABARTY et al. (1994): 35 (differential diagnosis, distribution); SINGH & BANYAL (2013): 1056 (distribution).

Physopelta slanbuschi (incorrect subsequent spelling): SEN et al. (1998): 331, 333–334, 339–340 (checklist, key, diagnosis, distribution).

Physopelta slanbuschii: KIRKALDY & EDWARDS (1902) : 165 (catalogue, distribution); HUSSEY (1929): 33 (catalogue, distribution); BLÖTE (1931): 100 (distribution); SCHMIDT (1931): 46 (distribution); LIU (1981): 222, 224, pl. 28 (key, redescription, figure); ZAMAL & CHOPRA (1990): 7, 10–11 (redescription, figures, distribution); Hu & Gui in ZHANG (1995): 111−112 (redescription, habitus, distribution, biology); STEHLÍK (2004): 4 (distribution); STEHLÍK & JINDRA (2003): 8 (distribution); STEHLÍK (2005a): 145 (distribution); RÉDEI et al. (2009): 12, 14, 18 (key, figure, distribution); ZHU et al. (2012): 195–198 (ecology, distribution).

Physopelta slanbushii (incorrect subsequent spelling): HUA (2000): 187 (check-list, host plants, distribution).

Physopelta (Physopelta) slanbuschii: VOIGT (2006) : 224 (key, distribution).

Neophysopelta schlanbuschi (incorrect subsequent spelling): AHMAD & ABBAS (1987): 135–136, 141–142 (new combination, redescription, figures, host plant, distribution).

Neophysopelta schlanbuschii (incorrect subsequent spelling): PERVEEN & AHMAD (1991): 161–162, 164 (key, differential diagnosis).

Neophysopelta neoschlanbuschii Perveen & Ahmad, 1991: 162–164 (key, description, figures, differential diagnosis, distribution).

HOLOTYPE: ♂, India, Puducherry, Karaikal Territory, Karumbagarans [= Kurumbagaram ] ( USNM). New synonym.

Material examined. BHUTAN: Boutan , no date, 1 ♀, no collector ( BMNH) . – INDIA: PUDUCHERRY: KARIKAL TERRITORY: Kurumbagaram , x.1945, 2 ♂♂ 1 ♀, iv.1946, 2 ♀♀, iv.1947, 1 ♀, P. S. Nathan lgt. ( NMPC). – TAMIL NADU: Coimbatore [= Koimbatur], xii.1945, 2 ♀♀, P. S. Nathan lgt. ( NMPC) . – NEPAL: NARAYANI ZONE: Chitwan Roy. Nat. Park., Sauraha village , 27.35N 84.30E, 166 m a.s.l., at light, 1 ♀, D. Král lgt., P. Kment det. ( NMPC) . – MYANMAR: KACHIN: Myitkyina, 1945, 5 ♂♂ 1 ♀, D. N. Marks lgt. ( AMNH). – SAGAING: Alaundaw Katthapa NP, 1.5 km SW Log Cabin Camp, Pagoda Road, 20°18.902′N 94°28.060′, 400 m a.s.l., semi-evergreen forest near Pagoda Stream , sifting moist leaf litter, 6.v.2003, 1 ♀, H. Schillhammer lgt., P. Kment det. ( NHMW) . – VIETNAM: HA NAM PROVINCE: Tonkin, Rég. d’Hanoi, Chiné , prés Phu-Ly [= Phu Ly], 1909, 3 ♀♀, L. Duport lgt., P. Kment det. ( MNHN). – HOA BINH PROVINCE: Tonkin , Hoabinh , x.1916, 1 ♂, R. V. de Salvaza lgt. ( BMNH). – NINH BINH PROVINCE: Cue Phuong, 23.–25.v.1986, 1 ♀ (with black metafemora), V. Švihla lgt. ( NMPC). – SONG BÉ PROVINCE: Ca-Na env., 700–900 m a.s.l., 1923, 1 ♀, Palane lgt. ( MNHN) . – LAOS: ATTAPEU PROVINCE: Annam Highlands Mts., Dong Ampan NBCA, Nong Fa (crater lake) env., 15°05.9′N 107°25.6′E, ca. 1,160 m a.s.l., 30.iv.–4.v.2010, 2 ♀♀, J. Hájek lgt. ( NMPC). – DONG NAI PROVINCE: Dong Nai Biosphere Res., I.G. 32.161, 11°18′N 107°06′E, 25.vi.–6.vii.2012, day collecting, 1 ♀, J. Constant & J. Bresseel lgt. ( ISNB). – KHAMMOUAN PROVINCE: Ban Khoun Ngeun, 18°07′N 104°29′E, 250 m a.s.l., 4.–16.xi + 25.–30.xi.2000, 1 ♀, E. Jendek & P. Pacholátko lgt., P. Kment det. ( NHMW). – SEXONG PROVINCE: ca. 51 km N Sekong, Ho Chi Minh trail, 15°48.1′N 106°39.4′E, ca. 580 m a.s.l., 13.–15.v.2010, 1 ♀, J. Hájek lgt. ( NMPC). – VIENTIANE PROVINCE: Lao Pako env., 55 km NE of Vientiane, 200 m a.s.l., 1.–4.v.2005, 1 ♂, J. Bezděk lgt., Z. Jindra det. ( NMPC) . – CAMBODIA: BUTTAMBANG PROVINCE: Ptek Toa (Tonle Sap Lake), on light trap, 7.vii.2005, 1 ♂ 1 ♀, I. Var lgt. ( ISNB). – PREAH VIHEAR PROVINCE: Phnom Kulen, light trap, 24.v.2003, 1 ♀, J. Constant & K. Smets lgt. ( ISNB). – SIEM REAP PROVINCE: Prek, Toal ( Tonle Sap Lake ), light trap, 27.v.2003, 6 ♂♂ 3 ♀♀, K. Smets & Grootaert lgt. ( ISNB) ; Siem Reap , light trap, 22.v.2003, 2 ♂♂ 4 ♀♀, J. Constant & K. Smets lgt. ( ISNB) ; ditto, 23.v.2003, 2 ♂♂, K. Smets & J. Constant lgt. ( ISNB) ; ditto, on light trap, 25.v.2006, 1 ♂ 4 ♀♀, J. Constant & K. Smets lgt. ( ISNB) ; 8 km north of Sre Noi road to Along Vaeng , 29.v.2003, 2 ♀♀, J. Constant & K. Smets lgt. ( ISNB) ; Angkor Thorn , day catch, 23.v.2003, 1 ♂, J. Constant & Grootaert lgt. ( ISNB) ; Forest S of Angkor Wat, light trap, 26.iv.2005, 1 ♀, K. Smets & I. Var lgt. ( ISNB) . – THAILAND: MAE HONG SON PROVINCE: Northern – Pai, 1.–12.v.2001, 1 ♂, R. Kocina lgt., Z. Jindra det. ( NMPC). – NAKHON SI THAMMARAT PROVINCE: Khao Luang, Banhan Sak Kah , 9.v.1922, 1 ♀, H. M. Pendelbury lgt., P. Kment det. ( BMNH) . – MALAYSIA: PERAK: Perak , no date, 1 ♂, Coll. Distant, P. Kment det. ( BMNH).

Distribution. Japan (Ryukyus) ( MATSUMURA 1905), China (Guangdong, Guangxi, Yunnan, Hainan) ( FABRICIUS 1787, 1794; BURMEISTER 1835; UHLER 1861; STÅL 1863, 1870; WALKER 1873; DISTANT 1903a; LIU 1981; Hu & Gui in ZHANG 1995; HUA 2000; KERZHNER 2001; RÉDEI et al. 2009), Pakistan (Islamabad Capital Territory, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab) ( AHMAD & ABBAS 1987), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry: Karaikal Territory, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal) ( DISTANT 1879a, 1903a; MAXWELL- LEFROY 1909; BLÖTE 1931; SCHMIDT 1931; MANNA et al. 1985; AHMAD & ABBAS 1987; GHOSH et al. 1989; ZAMAL & CHOPRA 1990; PERVEEN & AHMAD 1991, as Neophysopelta neoschlanbuschii ; CHAKRABARTY et al. 1994; SEN et al. 1998; SINGH & BANYAL 2013; this paper), Bhutan (new record), Nepal ( STEHLÍK 2004; this paper), Bangladesh ( AHMAD & ABBAS 1987), Myanmar ( KIRKALDY & EDWARDS 1902, DISTANT 1903a), Vietnam (new record), Laos ( BLÖTE 1931, STEHLÍK 2005a; this paper), Cambodia ( VOIGT 2006; this paper), Thailand ( STEHLÍK & JINDRA 2003; this paper), Malaysia (Malayan Peninsula: Pahang, Penang) ( WALKER 1873; this paper).

The records from Taiwan ( KERZHNER 2001) were not confirmed recently ( RÉDEI et al. 2009).

Comment. PERVEEN & AHMAD (1991) distinguished Neophysopelta neoschlanbuschii from Ph. slanbuschii based on the following characters: ‘Size of black discal spot on corium larger, pronotal width distinctly less than 2× its length; in male ventroposterior margin of pygophore slightly sinuate, lateral lobes of paramere comparatively broader, in female spermathecal duct with more number of coils’, whereas in Ph. slanbuschii : ‘Size of black discal spot on corium smaller, pronotal width slightly less than 2× its length; in male ventroposterior margin of pygophore truncate, lateral lobe of paramere narrower, in female spermathecal duct with less number of coils’. I had possibility to examine several specimens of Ph. slanbuschii evidently belonging to the same series (NMPC, see Material examined) as the holotype and two male paratypes of N. neoschlanbuschii . The specimens represent Ph. slanbuschii without doubt. It is obvious that diagnostic characters listed by PERVEEN & AHMAD (1991) for Neophysopelta neoschlanbuschii fit to the considerable intraspecific variability of Ph. slanbuschii , particularly the size of the central spot on the corium. Therefore, Neophysopelta neoschlanbuschii Perveen & Ahmad, 1991 is here considered a junior synonym of Ph. slanbuschii .